Rather than being learned from parents, a concept of property rights may automatically grow out of 2- to 3-year-olds’ ideas about bodily rights, such as assuming that another person can’t touch or control one’s body for no reason, Friedman proposed.

This article has multiple references listed and discusses the continued oppression of the american people by the abuse of government power. Property rights have been continually eroded since the drafting of the bill of rights. Many of those rights we no longer have, because of this It is important to educate the voter base on how their rights are being eroded. It also brings the question what can we do to protect our rights?

Ownership is a concept extrapolated from the observation that people naturally have possession and control of their body, and it primarily defines the appropriate role of coercion and voluntarism, specifically that it is appropriate to transfer resources voluntarily and inappropriate to transfer resources with coercion. If you are proposing to abolish ownership in favor of "common heritage" you have to define what the appropriate role of coercion and voluntarism becomes under this new strategy.

What do you think of "Intellectual Property" rights? I changed my mind after reading some of Stephan Kinsella's work.

Resource scarcity is the foundational principle underpinning the social construct of property rights. Kinsella states that there are no property rights in situations where there is no resource scarcity.

From that perspective, this young man is not being prosecuted, he is being persecuted.

Book interview provides a history of 'human rights'. Who made up the definitive list, who is the keeper of the list, where does the concept come from?

You will be surprised to know that the concept of 'human rights' is a very young one, what started in the 1970's and re-emerged in the 1990's has deep historical, religious and legal roots. Samuel also weighs in on current events in North Africa and Europe from his perspective as a historian.

“The basic problem with patents is that you’re trying to assign property rights to something that doesn’t deserve property rights. The fact that these property rights end up in the hands of financial owners as opposed to the original inventors just exacerbates the problem. The basic problem is that Chris [Dixon] and a bunch of engineers can be sitting at Hunch designing some amazing new feature and somebody unbeknownst to them has a patent on this feature and never actually implemented it and can now screw them over… It’s just not right, it shouldn’t exist.”

Paul McKeever does us a great service in the following video, where he argues that there can be no such thing as self-ownership unless you believe in a soul. Obviously Mr. McKeever thinks this disproves the concept of self-ownership because a soul is an imaginary religious thing that has no business in philosophy.

States do not have rights over individuals. You are born with inalienable rights and the American people, through the Constitution, have granted government permission to use force to protect those inalienable rights. The belief in the inalienable rights of individuals is what makes us libertarians and not conservatives or liberals. It is what differentiates us from any other political philosophy.

A Canadian woman has launched a human rights complaint against the city of Ottawa for refusing to let her to park in front of her home in a historic district, a court spokeswoman said Wednesday. Property rights are human rights, so she's got that much right, right?